Is being a Republican Red Pill?

[Shotgun Styles]

People who think of ideas as either being conservative or liberal have already conceded to somebody elses beliefs.

In general I hate the term 'red pill'. By declaring certain beliefs to be red pill (or listening to what other people claim to be red pill) you're just trading one constructed belief system for another. Instead we should all be striving to accept reality on reality's terms. We should listen to other peoples ideas and evaluate them based on our own experiences. That's not an easy task because many times we confuse what we think should happen with what actually happens.

I want to follow up on this point. I can't stand PUA lingo in general, and when I do use it as a matter of expediency I try to always put it in quotes as you have. Lingo is for followers. In my opinion the free mind movement should be about creating leaders, not followers.

The military was all about lingo and acronyms. It's a followers environment and if there's one nugget of wisdom I'd try to impart in these political threads it's that trying to belong, or to fit in ANYWHERE is inherently "blue pill". Stand out. Do you. Leave the following to the sheep.

 

[Blaster]

I see lots of things stated here as "Red Pill" that are really no different than the usual Republican Party platform.

Like what, for example?

Republican politics and the "Red Pill" seem to lign a lot is because feminism, equalism, and various other pseudoreligious ideologies advanced by "blue pill" women and their gay male allies are primarily associated with liberals and Democrats. Democrats and liberals represent the primary opposition.

To the extent conservatives and manosphere do not align, there tends to be PLENTY of opposition from other powerful factions such that there's no real point bringing it up.

 

[Sonsowey]

Blaster, I'm referring to the basic republican ideology.

Lower taxes on the rich, raise them on the poor. No services for the poor, bailouts for the rich. Wars wars wars. Military spending always. Spending on public goods never. Doubt global warming. Doubt evolution. Be super religious.

That kinda stuff.

Not just critiquing feminism.

It's so funny from my perspective, people call me a liberal because I believe government spending on things like schools, transport, hospitals, health care, etc. are good. Try to tell a feminist I'm a liberal and she'd screech your face off.

Trying to argue what beliefs are "red pill" is of course ridiculous, because everyone ultimately thinks they have taken the red pill and anyone who disagrees with them hasn't:

 

[Blaster]

Also, it's worth pointing out, especially for people accustomed to Parliamentary systems: The only real purpose for the Republican and Democrat parties are to win elections and pass arbitrary legislation. Their particular platforms form out of political expediency and large-scale internal compromise.

 

[Shotgun Styles]

Also, it's worth pointing out, especially for people accustomed to Parliamentary systems: The only real purpose for the Republican and Democrat parties are to win elections and pass arbitrary legislation. Their particular platforms form out of political expediency and large-scale internal compromise.

A bit oversimplified, but essentially this, yes.

Money, lobbying, favoritism, etc are all factors in this. As is fear mongering sensationalist media which has become increasingly partisan itself (Fox vs MSNBC/CNN)

 

[Blaster]

Blaster, I'm referring to the basic republican ideology.

Lower taxes on the rich, raise them on the poor. No services for the poor, bailouts for the rich. Wars wars wars. Military spending always. Spending on public goods never. Doubt global warming. Doubt evolution. Be super religious.

Yeah see I haven't seen any of that. Who says "lower taxes on the rich"? "No services for poor" certainly comes up sometimes but it's usually framed more like "no services for irresponsible carousel riding single mothers." Haven't seen any pro-military spending discussion.

Vox loves going after science fetishists, but usually words his arguments fairly carefully. Maybe someday I'll put together a post to more fully address his anti-evolution arguments but he's smart enough that I can't half-ass something. Meanwhile he only does this on his main blog (not his game blog), and I haven't seen that particular idea promoted elsewhere.

And who is particularly religious besides Vox, Dalrock, and Rollo?

 

[Days of Broken Arrows]

In 2010, Roissy/Heartiste gave a pretty good assessment as to why being Republican doesn't equate to Red Pill:

"Where conservatives sanctify women, liberals demonize men."

He went on to say: "Not all conservatives and not all liberals, but enough of them that a valid generalization can be made. Whether sanctifying women or demonizing men, the end result is the same: laws, policies, and cultural beliefs that are anti-male, and which we in the West are soaking in today."

Full post HERE.

 

[Roosh]

Traditional conservatism is somewhat close to "red pill", but modern Republicans no longer fit that view. Nonetheless, they do pay some "traditional" lip service to get the religious vote and also are more resistant to feminist beliefs. Further reading:

http://www.returnofkings.com/2209/are-you-a-traditional-conservative-but-dont-realize-it

http://www.rooshv.com/masculine-conservatism

 

[la_mode]

Affiliation to any political party is blue pill.

 

[RandalGraves]

Blaster, I'm referring to the basic republican ideology.

This sounds nitpicky, but I hate it when people use lowercase 'r' when referring to the proper noun "Republican." It means an entirely different word and makes you sound like an idiot before you pontificate.

Lower taxes on the rich, raise them on the poor. No services for the poor, bailouts for the rich. Wars wars wars. Military spending always. Spending on public goods never. Doubt global warming. Doubt evolution. Be super religious.

This is a pretty lazy critique, even for a total strawman. Republicans want to raise taxes on the poor? wut? Who do you think enacted the Earned Income Tax Credit or child tax credits? Do you know that the Bush tax cuts removed thousands of low-income families from the tax rolls?

No services for the poor? Because Republicans are against a 10% budget increase every year, that equates to "no services"? Get real. If you want to make an actual point and not just armchair theorize, at least cite some facts.

 

[Shotgun Styles]

This is a pretty lazy critique, even for a total strawman. Republicans want to raise taxes on the poor? wut? Who do you think enacted the Earned Income Tax Credit or child tax credits? Do you know that the Bush tax cuts removed thousands of low-income families from the tax rolls?

No services for the poor? Because Republicans are against a 10% budget increase every year, that equates to "no services"? Get real. If you want to make an actual point and not just armchair theorize, at least cite some facts.

Uh oh. Looks like we have a card carrying member of the Elephant party here.

 

[speakeasy]

Blaster, I'm referring to the basic republican ideology.

Lower taxes on the rich, raise them on the poor. No services for the poor, bailouts for the rich. Wars wars wars. Military spending always. Spending on public goods never. Doubt global warming. Doubt evolution. Be super religious.

That kinda stuff.

Not just critiquing feminism.

It's so funny from my perspective, people call me a liberal because I believe government spending on things like schools, transport, hospitals, health care, etc. are good. Try to tell a feminist I'm a liberal and she'd screech your face off.

Trying to argue what beliefs are "red pill" is of course ridiculous, because everyone ultimately thinks they have taken the red pill and anyone who disagrees with them hasn't:

otd:

Nobody can give an authoritative definition of "red pill" in the first place. It's like trying to define what art is. I've heard trad conservatives referred to as red pill and I've also heard leftists like Noam Chomsky referred to as red pill. What does that tell you? It says that's nonsense trying to attach red pill to any political party or political belief system. It's like trying to attach religious beliefs to a political party. Democrats think Jesus would be a liberal and Republicans think he's be a conservative. Red pill seems more like a belief system that transcends political parties, like religion. Red pillers can be left, right, libertarian or anarchist or some mix between. The only unifying red pill beliefs are accepting uncomfortable truths and seeing through the power structure that pulls the wool over our eyes to advance their own interest to our detriment. There are heroes and foes of all political persuasions. What we consider "the enemy" may differ somewhat depending on our own ideological leanings. I can't fathom for example considering Republicans red pill because I don't see what the hell is red pill about cutting taxes on the wealthy and fighting minimum wage hikes for those slaving away at Walmart. I don't see what's red pill about spending more on the military to fight boogeyman issues while opposing using some money to help people get healthcare.

The bottom line is stop trying to attach the term red pill to a political party.

 

[K Galt]

Nobody can give an authoritative definition of "red pill" in the first place.

*sigh*

I can.

The red pill is simply an allegory for THE TRUTH.

Republican's are no more "red pill" then Democrats. I like Days quote from Roissy illustrates it perfectly...

"Where conservatives sanctify women, liberals demonize men."

Two sides of the same coin.

When the Republican voterss lined up to support/vote for Sarah Palin, they either didn't hear about it, or didn't care when she openly proclaimed that she was a feminist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=185H2X1dNZI

 

[speakeasy]

The red pill is simply an allegory for THE TRUTH.

Nobody can agree to what "the truth" is. And if that were the case, we'd have a one party system.

 

[Sawyer]

Regardless of what the parties actually accomplish, they represent people with two wildly divergent views of the nature of culture, government and civilization.

I don't see why there can't be agreed upon a list of broad Red Pill truths that reflect the reality of these things.

 

[Shotgun Styles]

Nobody can give an authoritative definition of "red pill" in the first place.

*sigh*

I can.

The red pill is simply an allegory for THE TRUTH.

"Truth" is highly subjective. It is heavily dependent on one's point of view. Take a traffic accident, for example. Six different witnesses give six different accounts of the accident but all are telling the truth, from their perspective.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

Yeah. I have noticed some forum members trying to justify their political arguments by (attempting to) correlate them with game concepts. It just doesn't work. Politics is its own animal.

I have former schoolmates that work at the White House. It's no different than a prestigious company in the private sector and it doesn't matter which party occupies the executive branch. You typically need to have a connect on the Hill (intern for a senator or congressman for some experience) and then another "in" at the White House, which employs hundreds of staffers. Many staffers have "red pill" views. Many of them are just looking to polish their resumes so they have leverage in their career choices in the future. One of my friends has pics of him with Obama in the Oval Office with hundreds of "likes" on FB, most of them from chicks. He still goes out and drinks and games chicks, but just doesn't do anything illegal. Since staffers are unelected and don't need to pass senate confirmations, they don't have to worry about perception so long as they keep it clean.

Politics is red pill because it's reality. Politicians respond to incentives. Democratic systems enable people to fight/organize for their concepts of justice and freedom. That's how any group has been able to acquire progress, by demanding it.

If you look at the histories of the Democratic and Republican parties, you'll see that they've essentially switched places and positions in many respects. Americans have also moved to the center on a lot of issues so neither an ultra liberal or extreme right-wing conservative would find success on the national stage.

 

[K Galt]

"Truth" is highly subjective.

Let me restate it then...the red pill stands for ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

Nobody can agree to what "the truth" is. And if that were the case, we'd have a one party system.

Absolute truth doesn't require agreement or consensus. It just IS because it's true.

 

[K Galt]

If you look at the histories of the Democratic and Republican parties, you'll see that they've essentially switched places and positions in many respects.

Of course. That's because it's blue pill to believe there is a substantial difference between either party and their platforms.

 

[Feisbook Control]

The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.

G.K. Chesterton

The Republicans might actually be considered conservative if they actually conserved anything. The same could be said of most supposedly conservative parties, at least in the anglosphere. The Overton Window on most issues in most countries has moved massively to the left just in our lifetimes. The supposed conservative parties in their current forms would be unrecognisable to their historical selves even just twenty or thirty years ago.

I see the Republicans and other supposedly conservative parties as worse than the Democrats and their ilk in other countries. It might be a case of "if the Republican Party did not exist, the Democrat Party would need to invent it". The Republicans act as enablers, as perpetual bogeymen. If the Republicans just shrivelled up and died (which they eventually will due to the demographic changes in the US), then the Democrats and their allies would be able to implement all their completely batshit crazy ideas in full, right now. The whole world would resemble Detroit. Then we'd see some massive push back by a lot of people. Instead, it's drip, drip, drip and the culture changes slowly enough over time that what was once way out on the left and only advocated in the Department of Gender Studies or some other culturally Marxist enclave steadily becomes the mainstream and only grumpy old men can remember things not being completely insane.

In short, modern "conservatism" needs to die before we can ever hope to kill progressivism.